(Ken S. Tucker) wrote in message . com...
(Patrick Reany) wrote in message . com...
Taken from:
[brevity snip, see OP's 1st post...]

My definition of physics:
Physics is the search for the smallest set of rules

Is smallest relative?

Yes. If you could ever find two competing sets of rules (of differing
number of rules) that cover the same amount of empirical results just
as well, this definition would guide you to choose the one with the
smaller set of rules. (It goes under a variety of names, one being
"logical economy.")


by which we can completely describe the behavior of
inanimate matter

Is animate matter exempt from physics?

No. But the "being alive" aspect of animate matter is superfluous for
two reasons in physics: The first is that when physics models animate
matter, it will model it as collections of inanimate parts or systems
anyway (levers, pullies, potential differences, ion transport,
pressures, forces, heat flow, etc), and second, basic reasearch in
physics does not require animate objects, at least it has not been the
case in a long time. In other words, the rules developed in physics on
inanimate matter are thought to be sufficient to use to describe
animate matter up to a certain point, thereafter biology and/or
philosophy reigns.

And before you say, "But there are bio-physicists learning new things
about the structure of living things," I will add that they are
inevitably learning about how known physics gets worked out within
living bodies, but not learning new physics per se.


under natural circumstances.

Is there any other kind of circumstances?

Pardon the abrasiveness of my questions.
Recently, I've conjectured that all invariants
are pure numbers, and all pure numbers may
be set to 1 after adujusting units.

IMHO, every CS agrees 1 =1, then work from there.

Back when mechanics was thought to be the correct program to found all
of physics, it made sense to think of matter as fundamental and
irreducible, but since the advent of field theories this is not so
meaningful, as the material particle itself can be modeled as a
"localization" or accumulization of field, like the bunching up of a
tablecloth.
Patrick

This "bunching up" in a GR context is equivalent to where
a particle exists in the *probability field* of QM.

The denser the table clothe gets in GR the higher the
energy density, (using G_uv = kT_uv).

Likewise, the denser the table clothe gets, the more
probablity the particle is there in QM.

So G_uv = Psi'_u Psi_v,

Please see,

Newsgroups: sci.physics.relativity
Subject: Is the Gravitational Constant Relativistic?

Today I posted a means to unify invariants.

Regards Ken S. Tucker

Patrick